Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

store/tikv: reduce BatchGet pending keys only when there is no response-level error #21157

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Nov 26, 2020

Conversation

sticnarf
Copy link
Contributor

@sticnarf sticnarf commented Nov 20, 2020

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: tikv/tikv#9069

What is changed and how it works?

If the response-level error exists, we don't read the pairs and need to resend the original BatchGet request.

Related changes

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test

Release note

  • Part of the async commit feature.

…se-level error

Signed-off-by: Yilin Chen <sticnarf@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yilin Chen <sticnarf@gmail.com>
@sticnarf sticnarf force-pushed the batch-get-async-commit branch from 2c6797d to 6e42b1a Compare November 20, 2020 07:37
@sticnarf sticnarf marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2020 08:21
@sticnarf sticnarf requested a review from MyonKeminta November 20, 2020 08:21
@sticnarf
Copy link
Contributor Author

/run-all-tests tikv=pr/9077

Copy link
Contributor

@youjiali1995 youjiali1995 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@ti-srebot ti-srebot added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label Nov 24, 2020
@sticnarf
Copy link
Contributor Author

sticnarf commented Nov 24, 2020

Blocked by #20966

MyonKeminta
MyonKeminta previously approved these changes Nov 25, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@MyonKeminta MyonKeminta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

}, nil)
}
})

resp.Resp, err = c.usSvr.KvBatchGet(ctx, req.BatchGet())
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consider use batchGetReq instead of req.BatchGet() to make the purpose more clear. It doesn't matter though.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed. Could you approve the PR again?

@ti-srebot ti-srebot added status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels Nov 25, 2020
ti-srebot
ti-srebot previously approved these changes Nov 25, 2020
Signed-off-by: Yilin Chen <sticnarf@gmail.com>
@sticnarf sticnarf dismissed stale reviews from ti-srebot and MyonKeminta via 42f9508 November 25, 2020 12:28
@sticnarf
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@ti-srebot ti-srebot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Nov 26, 2020
@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor

Your auto merge job has been accepted, waiting for:

  • 20961

@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor

/run-all-tests

@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor

@sticnarf merge failed.

@sticnarf
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor

Your auto merge job has been accepted, waiting for:

  • 21278
  • 21305

@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor

/run-all-tests

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
sig/transaction SIG:Transaction status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. type/bugfix This PR fixes a bug.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants